ARTICLE
29 July 2025

APTEL Sets Aside WBERC Order For Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity through its judgment dated 04.07.2025 in the matter of Surya Alloy Industries Ltd. v. WBERC and Anr. held that Regulation 2.14.1 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2013 does not exclude the applicability of the Rule of Natural Justice.
India Energy and Natural Resources

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ("APTEL") through its judgment dated 04.07.2025 in the matter of Surya Alloy Industries Ltd. v. WBERC and Anr.1 held that Regulation 2.14.1 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2013 ("Business Regulations") does not exclude the applicability of the Rule of Natural Justice of 'one who hears must decide'.

APTEL held that the principle of 'one who hears must decide', being a fundamental tenet of quasi-judicial decision-making, is applicable to the functioning of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission ("WBERC"), particularly when performing adjudicatory functions such as tariff determination and dispute resolution. Further, it was observed that the principle ensures fairness and transparency and is implicitly preserved unless expressly excluded, which is not the case under Regulation 2.14.1.

APTEL further held that Regulation 2.14.1 of Business Regulations does not permit an order to be signed solely by a member who was not part of the full bench that originally heard the matter, once the other Members have demitted office. APTEL clarified that Regulation 2.14.1, when read as a whole, requires that the order be signed only by those Members who heard and/or considered the matter. The exception permitting a new member to sign applies only if such member is appointed and contributes to fulfilling the quorum requirement. In the absence of such quorum, the order is not validly constituted and cannot be sustained in law.

APTEL noted that where one or more members who had heard the matter retire prior to signing the final order, the proper course of action is to hear the matter de novo by a duly constituted bench satisfying the quorum. Further, it observed that continuation of proceedings and issuance of a final order by an incomplete coram violates both Regulation 2.14.1 and the fundamental principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the order liable to be set aside.

Footnote

1 Appeal No. 267 of 2023.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More